First, these information sharing policies are so important. I am fascinated by programs that tap into existing data. In the end, there is a lot of data out there. The big problem is that we don’t share that information very effectively. So I’m fascinated by organizations that build platforms that enable people — you, me… whomever — to tap into that data. It is why I have been repeatedly fascinated by Virtual Alabama. The Alabama Homeland Security Department essentially built a platform that enabled people to tap into existing data. But you can see it in other frameworks. It is why I’m fascinated by Facebook, which also builds a platform that enables people to share information. Twitter, the microblogging platform, is a similar site — there are a proliferation of sites that tap into Twitter data feeds to pull information together. It is why I was fascinated by the Twitter Vote Report Web site — again, tapping into data and sharing it.

So my principle would be that the EPA as they look at how to share environmental data — free it. Let it go. Make it transparent. Let people use that data on maps and Twitter feeds andFacebook… and other ways that we can even begin to expect now.

The second reason I’m following these kinds of projects closely is because I think they demonstrate a real innovation in the way government reaches out to people — democratization of government. This will win me no friends, but… I have been frustrated by the Regulations.gov e-government initiative. I understand that it has won some awards, but… it just doesn’t do much for me. Regulations.gov was a good initial start, but I think there are many more effective ways to deal with soliciting public comment. I still find it way too hard to find the regulation that I am interested in… and find it way too hard to find the consensus on the regulation or how people would change it to make it better. Essentially, to me it seems like we have just put an electronic face on the old paper method — people still submit comments and they get published. To make sense of them, you have to click through them. In the end, it doesn’t build consensus or really involve people in the creation of rules and regulations. And in the end, it has the appearance of transparency, but doesn’t result in real transparency, which is enabling people to see what is going on.

I would love to see an agency experiment posting a regulation in a wiki and ask people to actually edit the document the way people can inWikipedia items. To be honest, I’m not sure Wikipedia has it just right yet — it isn’t simple enough for the average use. But it gives you an idea of the realm of the possible. If you’ve never done it before, go into the “discussion” tap ofWikipedia items. Take, for example, the Wikipedia item on e-government… and look in the discussion tab for what some people are watching… and the history tab for what has been changed. Again, I don’t think this is a perfect model — in the end, it is too complex. What I’d love to see is almost a way that you can see changes in the document and that would click through to who made them and a discussion in why those changes were made. This is somewhat complex, but it may also spur a change in how we make these rules and regulations. There are some people who will be able to make changes to broad principles, while others with more expertise will be able to suggest actual wording.

So… I think these national dialogues are fantastic ways of reaching out to more people. I can’t wait to hear the lessons learned on what works… and what didn’t work as well as they hoped.

I don’t like to schedule too much good stuff for a Friday radio show because… well, let’s be honest, I think that we are all kind of tired on a Friday and do we really want tooooo much heavy lifting on the way home on a Friday afternoon?

EPA’s Marcus Peacock: Peacock is a CJD-fav. A little known fact — Peacock was actually the first government official to host a public blog. But he is a political who has been in government for awhile. So this is going to be the first of our “exit interviews” — seeking to tap into some of the lessons learned from those who will be leaving office on Jan. 20. In particular, Peacock has led EPA into the government 2.0 rehlm. So… we’re going to talk to him about how difficult that change is… whehter it is all it is cracked up to be is it just a lot of hype… and the role of leadership. He is a very smart guy. One quick Peacock aside: When I was at Federal Computer Week, I ran the Government Leadership Summit, which is an intimate gathering of the best and the brightest to think about how they can do their jobs better. We did the first government 2.0 conference, thanks in large part to Paul McCloskey, the former FCW editor in chief who helped run the Summit. McCloskey, now editor of 1105 GovInfo’s Government Health IT magazine, has one of the keenest minds of anybody I know. It was at that Summit that I met the EPA CIO Molly O’Neill. She got a lot out of the Summit — and used what she had learned to push EPA to try out some of these Web 2.0 activities. At the next Summit, held earlier this year, Peacock attended. He didn’t come as a speaker. He came as an attendee because he wanted to learn even more. It still is just inspiring to me that the number two guy at EPA would take the time out to look at issues in a new way. It is why I am so impressed with EPA’s radon videos — they came from front line EPA members. It is a sign of transformation. So I’m excited to talk to Peacock today.

I’ve been telling you about EPA’s innovative program for eliciting radon public service announcements — a government 2.0 way of reaching out to folks. (Don’t know what radon is? EPA has info here.) I’ve mentioned the radon video program here… and here… and here… Add one more to this list…

Thanks also for mentioning RadonLeaders.org project. One minor note, RadonLeaders.org is actually a partner website — basically sponsored by the state radon programs, with close collaboration from industry and EPA. I don’t want to take all the credit as it was truly a collaborative effort, and we’re really pleased with the results.

In a way, that makes this even more valuable because it is creating a platform where others can come together and work together and collaborate. In the end, it is the real wonderful — and power — thing about these tools: They empower others. It is the thing I love about Virtual Alabama. The Alabama Department of Homeland Security built the tool, but local communities and other state agencies are finding new ways to use the tool. Very powerful stuff.

The other part of EPA’s radon project that I really love: There were some senior leaders who didn’t know about it. To me, that says that it is an organization that hastruly moved beyond the top-down management approach. It is really transforming — and people are innovating and trying new ways of working across traditional boundaries.

Earlier, I told you about EPA’s wonderfully simple yet wonderfully innovative radon initiative. Rather then just having the EPA go out and make a public service announcement, they let users do it — and then selected the winner.

The Environmental Protection Agency has really been at the forefront of testing out government 2.0 initiatives. I am a huge fan of EPA CIO Molly O’Neill, who is one of the best and most innovative IT leaders out there. But O’Neill has help — EPA’s Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock is one of the most forward looking senior leaders I’ve seen in government. And I think EPA is a wonderful model for precisely how to try these government 2.0 initiatives — you don’t jump into the deep end of the pool. You experiment. You empower the people who are excited by it and that excitement is infectious throughout the organization.

EPA, of course, has a unique challenge because they have to collaborate with so many people — within EPA, with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, with other government agencies, with environmental groups, with communities concerned about their particular environmental question. They need to be transparent.

They also depend on data from many different sources — state and local governments, other agencies, the private sector…

The challenge: Educate a whole new generation about the dangers or radon.

So rather then just creating their own public service announcement, EPA featured a contest where people created content using sites like YouTube.

No shock here: It was a tough sell within the agency. I haven’t yet spoken to the brains behind this idea, Jeremy Ames of EPA’s Indoor Environments Division. But I have no doubt that there were concerns about giving up control of the message.

But by just about any measure, it has been an enormous success. The project was done on a shoestring budget — and got people involved. And, perhaps you will think about radon — maybe at least visit the EPA radon page — epa.gov/radon — so you really know what it is?